American Observer's replies make me... hate America.

neuradynamia banjo entoil archcriminal mithraicism averseness spanish cebur
Belly Punch And Navel Love
http://www.angelfire.com/uqfctxnz/uk0.html

A.O.: "....because Iran's war against the West..."

If you say so then it must be right (because you're never wrong, right?).

you humanitarian you :)

Persian Redneck says:

"Iranians are going to do what they wish and what they decide."

American Observer replies:

Ha Ha Ha. Saddam said the same thing when he tried to build the Osirak reactor, and you see what that got him. No amount of guff was able to complete Saddam's reactor and no amount of guff can bring Saddam back from hell. You can give your guff if you want, 'Persian Redneck'; but America and Israel will have the last word on Iran's nuclear program; and if the Iranians want to follow the Japanese down the kamikaze trail, well, Iran is hardly more ready for war than Iraq was, and at the end of the day Iran will simply join Iraq on the list of failed states.

American Observer,

Iranians are going to do what they wish and what they decide. The UN Charter allows it and rules and laws are for every body, including Yankees.
So, relax and do not interfere in other people's business. Consider this as an exemplary message of all Iranians to all Americans.

If Iran wants to buy refineries, or nuclear power plants or boats or power stations or cars or missiles, it will do so at its own pace and at such time of Iran's choosing. It is an independent and sovereign country.

Unknown Joe says:

"Iranians learned that it's better to be self-sufficient than be dependant on someone else a long time ago. On nuclear power plants, you don't want to accept the fact that their oil will run out in the next decades and they need to develop another source of power."

American Observer says:

That does not make even a bit of sense. We don't know exactly when Iran's oil will run out, because Iran's war against the West has meant that there has been no oil exploration or development in Iran since the nineteen-seventies. If the Iranians shut down their nuclear program and stopped sending armor-piercing bombs to the Taliban, then the Iranians could get people in to develop their oil industry, and they might double its life span.

Secondly, how exactly does building a BREEDER reactor today make them self-reliant? Why is it 'self-reliant' to sell tens of billions of barrels of oil so they can give the Russians billions of dollars to build a high-tech reactor which does not fit the Iranian economy? Why is it 'self-reliant' to sell millions of barrels of oil so Iran can get the millions of dollars which Iran will need to purchase nuclear fuel from Russia? Why do the Iranians keep blathering about 'research?' And if Iran really wants to generate electricity, why is Iran so desperate to keep the fissile materials which the reactor generates? When you get right down to it, why build a BREEDER reactor which generates so much fissile material when a LIGHT-WATER reactor generates far fewer fissile materials, and a lot more electricity?

Indeed, if the Iranians want to be 'self-reliant,' why is Iran selling oil at the world price so Iran can purchase gasoline at the world price, instead of just paying the Russians to build an oil refinery so the Iranians can make their own gasoline and sell it to their own people at a much cheaper local price?

Unknown Joe, you are still dodging the questions. Would you like to try again?

A.O.: "Can you explain to us why a nation which desperately needs oil refineries is spending billions of dollars to buy a nuclear reactor from the Russians?
WHY NOT JUST BUY AN OIL REFINERY FROM THE RUSSIANS?"

Iranians learned that it's better to be self-sufficient than be dependant on someone else a long time ago. On nuclear power plants, you don't want to accept the fact that their oil will run out in the next decades and they need to develop another source of power.

Why do you dodge questions? I ask you questions and you dodge them.

On IAEA, I didn't say IAEA "trusts" Iran, I said IAEA most likely knows much more about such matters than you, and they are more aware of Iran's nuclear program than you.

A.O.: "Moving along, let me remind you of some of the other questions that you have tried to evade"

"tried to evade"? excuse me mastuh (wow, off the deep end with your attitude and accusations?)

A.O.: "But it is typically Iranian".
"It is clear that Iranians are motivated only by egotism and malice", "and reason will not work with them", "We don't need to negotiate with the Iranians"

Sounds exactly like the position of ...
never mind. So A.O., in your unbiased and non-prejudicial opinion and comments (and of course, without any ulterior motives), should there ever be negotiations and relations with Iran and Iranians?
LOL!!!!

Whoever says:

"So they "keep on capturing Iranians carrying bombs into Afghanistan and Iraq"? Missed that one on the news."

American Observer replies:

Wow -- you must have missed the entry that I put above. Allow me to repost:

The Washington Post reports today:

"Arms Flow Between Iran, Taliban Escalating

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 15, 2007; 12:18 PM

An Iranian arms shipment destined for the Taliban was intercepted on Sept. 6 by the international force in Afghanistan in what appears to be an escalating flow of weaponry between the two former enemies, according to officials from countries in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

The shipment included armor-piercing bombs known as explosively formed projectiles, which have been especially deadly when used as roadside bombs against foreign troops in Iraq, the sources said. The NATO-led force interdicted two smaller shipments of similar weapons coming from Iran into southern Helmand province on April 11 and May 3.

....

Iran, a Shiite-dominated country, has long opposed the Taliban, a Sunni group with different ideas. Their cooperation is based on common opposition to foreign and particularly Western troops in Afghanistan, according to the United States and officials from other countries in the force.

"They're playing with the enemy. They have no love lost for the Taliban. The Taliban killed several Iranian diplomats. We believe it's about hurting the Americans and the international community," an official from one of the participating countries said on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence."

You can see the whole article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/15/AR2007091500803.html?hpid%3Dtopnews⊂=AR

American Observer comments:

Wow -- the Iranians and the Taliban are natural enemies. Seeing the Iranians send arms to the Taliban is like seeing the Nazis send arms to the Soviets. What the Iranians are doing is not only malicious, it is stupid and irrational.

But it is typically Iranian. Some people on this board have suggested that Iran would never do anything as crazy as build a nuclear weapon, and some people on this board have suggested that Iran would never do anything as crazy as use that nuclear weapon, or give it to someone else to use it. Of course, today's news shows that is nonsense. It is clear that Iranians are motivated only by egotism and malice, like the Al-Qaeda, and reason will not work with them. We don't need to negotiate with the Iranians; we need to keep the sanctions and make them tighter.

A.O.: "and the Iranians are not a bit more logical".

Maybe it's their culture, or maybe it's a racial thing. I hope Iranians will never be as "logical" as you are, for the world would be in much more trouble than it already is.

A.O.: "The Iranians do not have a logical reason to arm their old enemies, the Taliban, but the Iranians are doing it anyway. We know this because the American military keeps capturing Iranians carrying armor-piercing bombs into Afghanistan and Iraq -- armor-piercing bombs that neither the Taliban nor the Shia insurgents in Iraq can make for themselves".

So they "keep on capturing Iranians carrying bombs into Afghanistan and Iraq"? Missed that one on the news.

Prejudice, blinds.

Yup, they're all "stories" (about Iran), unless they fit how you want to twist it and in the process to help justify attacking and bombing Iran and turning the whole region into rubble and a humaninatrian nightmare.

But, you are concerned very much and care for the "Azeris" and the "kurds" (only), the rest of the people in your book, you don't care for them, for they must be the bad guys. Afterall, there must be bad guys to help justify a very costly and ugly war, and to sell it to the people.

you humanitarian you ;)

(I'll read the rest of your comments later)

Unknown Joe says:

"Kurds are Iranian and the land of Kurds is Iran. Is it too hard for you to understand that there can be a country with people of different ethnicities in it? or no?"

American Observer says:

Oh, I have heard that story many times before. The Russians used to say it about the Kazakhs and the Azeris, and the Chinese still say it about the Tibetan and the Uighers.

Tell me, Unknown Joe, do you embrace the Russian or Chinese propaganda about the Russian and Chinese empires? If not, can you understand why I take the same attitude about the Iranian empire today?

To A.O., we're going to have fun.

Again, are you trying to imply that given the chance, Iranians won't hesitate to attack other people?

A.O.: "Indeed, at least a quarter of the territory of the Republic Of Iran is filled with captive people such as the Kurds and the Azeris".

LOL! don't let the truth get in your way (while you're manufacturing)

Kurds are Iranian and the land of Kurds is Iran. Is it too hard for you to understand that there can be a country with people of different ethnicities in it? or no?
On Azeris, if Torks who migrated into Iran in the past 1000 to 200 years ago and are of many generations Iranians, though they never lived in the state (province) of Azarabaijan, are they still considered "Azeris"? Azarbaijan is one of the states of Iran in the northwest. The new nation of Azerbaijan's name was given to that region which was taken by force from Iran (during the land-grabbing of Iran by Russia and Britain teaming together). That area was called Azarbaijan by the Russians in the hopes that maybe in the future they can take more of Iran's ancient lands by force and of course under twisting the truth. Iranians of the Tork ethnicity live in many provinces (states) of Iran and they don't call themselves "Azeris".

You're not trying to create ethnic and racial tension and division are you? You're concerned for humanity's sake, right? (you humanitarian you ;)

(I'll read the rest of your comments later)

To A.O., we're going to have fun.

Again, are you trying to imply that given the chance, Iranians won't hesitate to attack other people?

A.O.: "Indeed, at least a quarter of the territory of the Republic Of Iran is filled with captive people such as the Kurds and the Azeris".

LOL! don't let the truth get in your way (while you're manufacturing)

Kurds are Iranian and the land of Kurds is Iran. Is it too hard for you to understand that there can be a country with people of different ethnicities in it? or no?
On Azeris, if Torks who migrated into Iran in the past 1000 to 200 years ago and are of many generations Iranians, though they never lived in the state (province) of Azarabaijan, are they still considered "Azeris"? Azarbaijan is one of the states of Iran in the northwest. The new nation of Azerbaijan's name was given to that region which was taken by force from Iran (during the land-grabbing of Iran by Russia and Britain teaming together). That area was called Azarbaijan by the Russians in the hopes that maybe in the future they can take more of Iran's ancient lands by force and of course under twisting the truth. Iranians of the Tork ethnicity live in many provinces (states) of Iran and they don't call themselves "Azeris".

You're not trying to create ethnic and racial tension and division are you? You're concerned for humanity's sake, right? (you humanitarian you ;)

(I'll read the rest of your comments later)

To A.O., we're going to have fun.

Again, are you trying to imply that given the chance, Iranians won't hesitate to attack other people?

A.O.: "Indeed, at least a quarter of the territory of the Republic Of Iran is filled with captive people such as the Kurds and the Azeris".

LOL! don't let the truth get in your way (while you're manufacturing)

Kurds are Iranian and the land of Kurds is Iran. Is it too hard for you to understand that there can be a country with people of different ethnicities in it? or no?
On Azeris, if Torks who migrated into Iran in the past 1000 to 200 years ago and are of many generations Iranians, though they never lived in the state (province) of Azarabaijan, are they still considered "Azeris"? Azarbaijan is one of the states of Iran in the northwest. The new nation of Azerbaijan's name was given to that region which was taken by force from Iran (during the land-grabbing of Iran by Russia and Britain teaming together). That area was called Azarbaijan by the Russians in the hopes that maybe in the future they can take more of Iran's ancient lands by force and of course under twisting the truth. Iranians of the Tork ethnicity live in many provinces (states) of Iran and they don't call themselves "Azeris".

You're not trying to create ethnic and racial tension and division are you? You're concerned for humanity's sake, right? (you humanitarian you ;)

(I'll read the rest fo your comments later)

Wow, Unknown Joe -- so many words, and so few answers! You have dodged almost every one of my questions!

Unknown Joe says:

"Wrong, Russia and Britain weren't as powerful 250 years ago, they became more powerful in the following decades in the region."

American Observer responds:

That is my point exactly. Iran was very aggressive under Nader Shah, but with the rise of rival empires, such as the Russian and British and Turkish Empires, the Iranians simply were not able to find any targets who were weak enough to attack. Nonetheless, the Iranian Empire remained in occupation of a considerable portion of Kurdistan and Azerbaijan, and the Iranian imperialists are still there. Indeed, at least a quarter of the territory of the Republic Of Iran is filled with captive people such as the Kurds and the Azeris.

Unknown Joe says:

"You will of course try to write this off as "guff", as a matter of fact a stable Iraq and Afghanistan is what Iranians want, it's in their interest and for the sake of their security...."

American Observer replies:

You are right -- I am writing that off as guff. The Taliban never had a logical reason to blow up the World Trade Center in New York, but they did it anyway, and the Iranians are not a bit more logical. As people in the Middle East like to say, "The Iranians have three different governments and ten thousand different leaders," and each one of those governments has a separate sent of motives and agendas. The Iranians do not have a logical reason to arm their old enemies, the Taliban, but the Iranians are doing it anyway. We know this because the American military keeps capturing Iranians carrying armor-piercing bombs into Afghanistan and Iraq -- armor-piercing bombs that neither the Taliban nor the Shia insurgents in Iraq can make for themselves.

Unknown Joe, I don't know how old you are or how well you know American culture. Whatever. If you know America well enough, you would recognize the name of the comedian Jimmy Durante. Jimmy Durante used to have a routine where he tried to steal an elephant. In the routine, Jimmy Durante would spring the elephant from its cage and walk it out the door, but finally Durante would be walking down the street with the elephant in tow, and a policeman would walk up to Durante and say "Hey, buddy -- what do you think you are doing with that elephant?"

At this point Durante would scratch his head and look in both directions before asking in a tone of mystification "WHAT elephant?"

At this point you are in the same position, Unknown Joe. You can keep saying "WHAT armor-piercing bombs?" as often as you like, but Iran keeps sending them to Afghanistan or Iraq, and you have not even tried to offer an alternative story about where they come from.

Unknown Joe says:

"A.O.: "can you explain to us why a nation with more oil than any other in the world still does not have enough cracking towers to make gasoline for its own people?"

Unknown Joe: Again, I'm not an expert, but here's my two cents. It might be due to a combination of factors. The Iraq invasion and war and the destruction of the oil facilities, not having access to such technology, the imbargos and sanctions, possible incompetence by those in charge of the oil industry, such projects require huge sums of investments and money, even a wealthy country such as Saudi Arabia can't pursue such projects alone. "

American Observer replies:

So many words, and so much evasion! I know that the Iranians need partners to build an oil refinery, and I said so! However, the Russians are quite able to build an oil refinery, and the Russians have been building oil refineries for a hundred years. Why can't the Iranians just buy an oil refinery from the Russians?

Now, why don't you answer the question that you tried to dodge:

Can you explain to us why a nation which desperately needs oil refineries is spending billions of dollars to buy a nuclear reactor from the Russians?

WHY NOT JUST BUY AN OIL REFINERY FROM THE RUSSIANS?

Uknown Joe says:

"Well, I am ignorant about the nuclear field (many other fields too). It seems that all the experts in IAEA (and I would think there are American IAEA officials also), are completely ignorant, according to your comments."

American Observer replies:

You are distorting the position of the IAEA. The IAEA does not trust Iran, and the IAEA wants Iran's nuclear program under international control. The IAEA wants Iran to ship its nuclear materials out of the country where Iran cannot use them to make nuclear bombs. The IAEA is not as aggressive as America and Great Britain in wanting sanctions on Iran, because the IAEA is a little more patient; but their attitude towards Iran's nuclear program is the same.

Unknown Joe says:

"The development of nuclear power was initiated and recommended by United States, knowing the oil is limited and will run out in several decades. The nuclear power plant in Bushehr started during the shah's time and with the approval of United States."

American Observer replies:

That was then, and this is now. The Atoms For Peace program is over. America is no longer touting the peaceful development of nuclear energy as mankind's golden road to the future. In fact, we have not even started a nuclear reactor in our own country for decades. Furthermore, the Shah is dead. (In fact, he probably died before you were born.) Neither America nor the world trusts Iran any more. Iran's attack on our embassy in the seventies and Iran's attacks on Kuwaiti ships in the eighties and Iran's support of the insurgents in Algeria in the nineties and Iran's arms for the insurgents in the present decade remind us that Iran is violent and irrational, and Iran cannot be trusted with weapons of mass destruction, or with the means to make them.

Moving along, let me remind you of some of the other questions that you have tried to evade:

Can you explain, more than half a century into the nuclear age, why any one would need to do research with a breeder reactor?

Nuclear power is a mature technology, and doing research into nuclear power is like trying to figure out how many wheels an automobile needs.

If the Iranians want to do research, why not spend their money on a cyclotron or a telescope or a hospital to work on cancer research?

And if the Iranians want electricity, why buy a BREEDER reactor? Why not buy a LIGHT-WATER reactor, which makes more voltage and less radioactive waste?

"You mean since the time of Nadir Shah? Well, excuse me, do you mean that Iran has been incapable of attacking other countries, because Iran was hemmed in on all sides by greater powers, such as the British, the Russians, and the Turks?" - A.O.

Wrong, Russia and Britain weren't as powerful 250 years ago, they became more powerful in the following decades in the region (more "guff"? lol). As for the Ottomans, the superpower, they attacked Iran and started a very long and bloody war 500 years ago (by attacking north-west Iran). I know this may sound as "guff" to you, with the delibertae manner which you are trying to demonize Iranians and in the process twisting the truth. Are you trying to imply that given the chance, Iranians won't hesitate to attack other people?

A.O.: "and I think all honest observers will agree that Iran is attacking both of those nations".

LOL! See A.O., your credibility goes out of the window with such self back-patting comments (of course, you consider yourself as one of the "honest" observers).

You will of course try to write this off as "guff", as a matter of fact a stable Iraq and Afghanistan is what Iranians want, it's in their interest and for the sake of their security (not mentioning for the sake of those people). They have been helping in the construction of these countries.

AO: "Of course, Iran is merely shipping armor-piercing bombs to those terrorists, and not nuclear weapons; after all, Iran does not have nuclear weapons -- yet; and we can be sure that Iran will not ship nuclear weapons before Iran has them. Therefore, we need to keep the iron ring around Iran's neck until the Iranian regime falls, or until Iran has been forced to abandon its entire nuclear program the hard way".

So, A.O. they just want to kill Americans, that's what you want everyone to beleive , right?
The terrorists are coming from Saudi Arabia and other friendly nations to the United States, you know it and yet it is never mentioned.

A.O.: "Do you deny that Iran has an open and public nuclear weapons program?"

Excuse me, but I'm a civilian and am not privy to such information. It seems that experts in this field disagree with you, but what do they know, they're only experts in that field. LOL

A.O.: "can you explain to us why a nation with more oil than any other in the world still does not have enough cracking towers to make gasoline for its own people?"

Again, I'm not an expert, but here's my two cents. It might be due to a combination of factors. The Iraq invasion and war and the destruction of the oil facilities, not having access to such technology, the imbargos and sanctions, possible incompetence by those in charge of the oil industry, such projects require huge sums of investments and money, even a wealthy country such as Saudi Arabia can't pursue such projects alone.

A.O.: "Can you explain why a nation with more oil than another in the world is selling oil overseas so it can buy gasoline from foreign powers at world prices, prices which are much higher than the price would be if Iran refined its own gasoline?"

Very good point, they don't enough enough refineries (the imbargo, the shortage of cash, the war, ability to build refineries, money,etc.)

A.O.: "Can you explain to us why a nation which desperately needs oil refineries is spending billions of dollars to buy a nuclear reactor from the Russians?"

The development of nuclear power was initiated and recommended by United States, knowing the oil is limited and will run out in several decades. The nuclear power plant in Bushehr started during the shah's time and with the approval of United States. It seems they have to pursue both (refineries and nuclear power plants).

A.O.: "can you explain, more than half a century into the nuclear age, why any one would need to do research with a breeder reactor? Nuclear power is a mature technology, and doing research into nuclear power is like trying to figure out how many wheels an automobile needs. If the Iranians want to do research, why not spend their money on a cyclotron or a telescope or a hospital to work on cancer research? And if the Iranians want electricity, why buy a breeder reactor? Why not buy a light-water reactor, which makes more voltage and less radioactive waste?"

I don't know about nuclear technology (and nuclear breeders). Maybe, they feel they are isolated (sanctions) and need it in order to be self-sufficient. Past embargos (such as the early '50s) may have played a role in this way of thinking also. Nuclear science and technology appararently helps in other fields also (medicine).

A.O.: "You would have to be completely ignorant of nuclear physics to find any mystery in any of them".

Well, I am ignorant about the nuclear field (many other fields too). It seems that all the experts in IAEA (and I would think there are American IAEA officials also), are completely ignorant, according to your comments.

Iran is not this very imminent danger to Israel (oh, America too). Either you are completely ignorant of this fact, or are trying to twist the facts for whatever reason. They don't want to harm any people, they just want to live. As for IRI, it seems some support it and some don't, it seems many in both camps favor progress and curbing of incompetence and corruption. History and common sense make it clear that when a country is attacked, the people of that country will defend themselves. You are either deliberately, or innocently beating the drums of war for killing and hurting millions of innocent Iranians. Why? because you think they can't wait to hurt others.

(can I borrow your crystal ball for a short time? I'd appreciate it)

Anonymous says:

"I will respond soon."

American Observer says:

Wonderful. When you do, would you do us the courtesy of using a screen name? Or should we just call you 'Unknown Joe?'

Oh A.O.,

A.O.: "I expect to hear the usual storm of guff, but I don't expect you to actually address any of my questions".

Fortune teller? Can I borrow your crystal ball? (I need to make some good investments in the stock market and with high returns).

I will respond soon.

Anonymous says about Iran:

"Nor is it even close to having nuclear weapons, according to intelligence studies in the media they're at least 5 to 10 years away (even if they had such a clandestine program for developing nuclear weapons)."

American Observer replies:

Anonymous, how close do they have to be before we take action? Do you deny that Iran has an open and public nuclear weapons program? If you deny it, can you explain to us why a nation with more oil than any other in the world still does not have enough cracking towers to make gasoline for its own people? Can you explain why a nation with more oil than another in the world is selling oil overseas so it can buy gasoline from foreign powers at world prices, prices which are much higher than the price would be if Iran refined its own gasoline? Can you explain to us why a nation which desperately needs oil refineries is spending billions of dollars to buy a nuclear reactor from the Russians? And, can you explain, more than half a century into the nuclear age, why any one would need to do research with a breeder reactor?

Nuclear power is a mature technology, and doing research into nuclear power is like trying to figure out how many wheels an automobile needs. If the Iranians want to do research, why not spend their money on a cyclotron or a telescope or a hospital to work on cancer research? And if the Iranians want electricity, why buy a breeder reactor? Why not buy a light-water reactor, which makes more voltage and less radioactive waste?

The answers to all those questions are obvious, 'anonymous.' You would have to be completely ignorant of nuclear physics to find any mystery in any of them. I expect to hear the usual storm of guff, but I don't expect you to actually address any of my questions.

Anonymous claims:

"t seems that Iran is not that big and bad threat as being presented (irrespective of who's in power, Iranians have never attacked their neighbors for the past 250 years)."

American Observer replies:

You mean since the time of Nadir Shah? Well, excuse me, do you mean that Iran has been incapable of attacking other countries, because Iran was hemmed in on all sides by greater powers, such as the British, the Russians, and the Turks?

But then, I guess we have to define what we mean by 'attack.' The Iranians have been caught sending armor-piercing bombs to terrorists in Iran and Afghanistan. Since the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan have both been elected by their people and since the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan have both been recognized by the United Nations, it is clear that nobody has a right to arm insurgents in those countries, and I think all honest observers will agree that Iran is attacking both of those nations. Of course, Iran is merely shipping armor-piercing bombs to those terrorists, and not nuclear weapons; after all, Iran does not have nuclear weapons -- yet; and we can be sure that Iran will not ship nuclear weapons before Iran has them. Therefore, we need to keep the iron ring around Iran's neck until the Iranian regime falls, or until Iran has been forced to abandon its entire nuclear program the hard way.

Anonymous says:

"It seems that the country is about a little over 9 trillion dollars in the red, during the last 7 years."

American Observer agrees:

I agree. I was completely against Bush's tax cuts the same way I was against Bush himself. As an American, I am proud that I voted for Bill Clinton twice, I voted for Al Gore, and I voted for John Kerry.

Hope this helps A.O.

It seems that Iran is not that big and bad threat as being presented (irrespective of who's in power, Iranians have never attacked their neighbors for the past 250 years). Nor is it even close to having nuclear weapons, according to intelligence studies in the media they're at least 5 to 10 years away (even if they had such a clandestine program for developing nuclear weapons).

It seems that the country is about a little over 9 trillion dollars in the red, during the last 7 years.

It seems that the Iraq war was a big sham.

It seems that the majority of the American people are upset with all the lies and the spins.

(is the grammar a bit better?)

p.s. I'm no fan of Chomsky, but why such claims as "we" and "despise" and "real scholars"? OK, so some may agree with him and some may not, what's the big deal?
Blind prejudice, blinds (sorry for the grammar) :)

Anonymous says:

"The good 'ol boys in Washington of course have been listening to you for the past 27 years, whatever you say sir ..."

American Observer replies:

'Annomymous,' I am flattered, but I have to assure you that I have no voice in American foreign policy -- really; I am just a private citizen, like yourself.

Anonymous says:

"p.s. By the way, who's "we"? (you yourself deep down know you're not talking on behalf of the majority of Americans, waiting for your spin)"

American Observer replies:

I am sorry, I wish I could form a response to that, but the simple fact is that your grammar is so crooked that I cannot decipher your message. Would you like to try again?

A.O.: "We don't need to negotiate with the Iranians; we need to keep the sanctions and make them tighter".

The good 'ol boys in Washington of course have been listening to you for the past 27 years, whatever you say sir (don't bother with trying to justify and also alienate them baaaad Iranians, not needed, whatever you say goes, so far).

p.s. #1 By the way, who's "we"? (you yourself deep down know you're not talking on behalf of the majority of Americans, waiting for your spin)

A.O.: "and that is why Naom Chomsky and his castles of nonsense are despised by real scholars all over the world".

despised"? such strong words, and who are the "real scholars"? you? LOL!

A.O.: "We don't need to negotiate with the Iranians; we need to keep the sanctions and make them tighter".

The good 'ol boys in Washington of course have been listening to you for the past 27 years, whatever you say sir (don't bother with trying to justify and also alienate them baaaad Iranians, not needed, whatever you say goes, so far).

p.s. By the way, who's "we"? (you yourself deep down know you're not talking on behalf of the majority of Americans, waiting for your spin)

Yes, discussions of the Chinese thinking 'in terms of centuries' always seem to ignore the fact that they have radically warped their gender demographics through the constant drowning of female babies under their One Child policy, are massively polluting their cities and countryside on a scale that makes Russian communism look like a greenpeace rally, and are investing primarily in land speculation and internal corruption. China was a great civilization once and may be again, but they are headed in the wrong direction.

And all this discussion of 'soft power' - as if America doesn't have any? Ever heard of movies, television, and rock and roll? There's a reason American culture is still beloved as far afield as China and Iran - it is actually America's greatest asset, and why countries that we 'lose' to, like Vietnam, end up loving us again anyway. America: keep on rocking in the free world.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"First you called Jasper Becker “the Beijing bureau chief” for a certain Hong Kong tabloid –I’ll get back to that point later, then you claim he’s a “specialist in Asian history”.

American Observer says:

I never claimed that Jasper Becker works for a tabloid, I said that he works for a newspaper. I don't speak Naom Chomsky-glish, IO; what does the word 'tabloid' mean in your language? Secondly, there is no contradiction between being a specialist in Asian history and the Beijing bureau chief of the South China Morning Post. Think about it.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"You claim that “figures from the Chinese Communist Party are always lies”, then you turn right around and quote some figure from a dead Chinese president. Why in the hell would you quote a source you think is unreliable???"

American Observer replies:

IO, why don't you know anything about Chinese history? The figures from the President of the People's Republic Of China do not come from the Chinese Communist Party -- they come from a president who was overthrown in a military coup and put under house arrest for supporting the demonstrators at Tiananmen. Why don't you know that?

'Intellectual' Observer says:

"As for” The South China Morning post” (quite a mouth full) being the most respected journal in Asia, well, all I have to say is we all have our own journalistic standards. And mine just happens to be much higher than yours…"

American Observer replies:

I have caught you in another lie. I never said it was THE most respected journal in Asia, I said it was ONE of the most respected journals in Asia. And furthermore, it remains impossible for you to honestly attack a periodical which you have never read, ever. While you are at it, why don't you name an Asian periodical which you yourself respect more? Then, why don't you quote a book which you respect about Chinese history? If you and the Nazis and Naom Chomsky have an alternative history or alternative figures for the Great Leap Forward, why don't you put them on the board?

'Intellectual' Observer says:

"How else would you describe someone who makes claims (that he’s ill qualified to make) and can’t back it up with hard evidence"

American Observer replies:

How 'hard' do you need that evidence, IO? Don't you know the enormous amount of bureaucratic evidence which confirms the Great Leap Forward, and can't you see how the hundreds of interviews which Jasper Becker gave mesh with it? Don't you see that is the same kind of evidence that we got from the Nuremburg trials, when the crimes of your friend Hitler were exposed? As I have said elsewhere, you are the one who is speaking without evidence.

'Intellectual' Observer says:

"In conclusion, A.O, if you want to convince me of your salacious claims, you need to come with a lot more than some phony evidence from a “supposed” Chinese scholar."

American Observer replies:

IO, the word 'salacious' refers to sexual, and you know neither of us have referred to sex in any way, shape, or form, unless you consider famine and cannibalism to be sexy. To be honest, I don't think you meant 'salacious' in the real sense either; you are just an intellectual crow, pasting your feathers with borrowed words and rhetoric that you don't actually understand. Furthermore, we all remember how I fried your 'statistical reasoning' last night, and you have given not even a shred of evidence to call Jasper Becker's evidence 'phony' or accuse him of being a 'supposed' Chinese scholar. You are the one who is making claims that cannot be substantiated.

IO, I wish I could say that I have never seen more pretentious arrogance attached to less logic or evidence before, but I cannot make that claim. Unfortunately, you are presenting exactly the same piles of self-righteous drivel that the world expects from Naom Chomsky; and that is why Naom Chomsky and his castles of nonsense are despised by real scholars all over the world.

A.O.
First you called Jasper Becker “the Beijing bureau chief” for a certain Hong Kong tabloid –I’ll get back to that point later, then you claim he’s a “specialist in Asian history”. I suppose next you’re going to tell me that he’s got a PhD in Statistics from MIT, and he did his PhD dissertation on “how the Chinese survived famines of 1958” WHAT A BUNCH OF HORSE MANURE!!! Now, I know you don’t like the way I describe your idol Jasper Becker as a second rate story teller, but I call it like I see it. How else would you describe someone who makes claims (that he’s ill qualified to make) and can’t back it up with hard evidence... BTW, the first rate story tellers work for WP and assured us that we’ll find all kinds of WMD in the Iraqi desert… Look man, I’m not the one being arrogant here. To the contrary, I think it’s extremely arrogant of you to ask me to accept an absurd claim without providing any corroborating evidence….

And A.O., you need to stop talking out both sides of your mouth. You claim that “figures from the Chinese Communist Party are always lies”, then you turn right around and quote some figure from a dead Chinese president. Why in the hell would you quote a source you think is unreliable??? Has you brain atrophied to the point where it’s no longer capable of any kind of serious cognitive activities??

As for” The South China Morning post” (quite a mouth full) being the most respected journal in Asia, well, all I have to say is we all have our own journalistic standards. And mine just happens to be much higher than yours…

In conclusion, A.O, if you want to convince me of your salacious claims, you need to come with a lot more than some phony evidence from a “supposed” Chinese scholar. Look, if you want to believe every story in 1001 Arabian nights that’s your business. And if you want to hop on your magic carpet and ride into oblivion, that would be fine too. Just don’t expect the rest of us to come along for a ride.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"Associating me with Hitler, or quoting some obscure scholars, or invoking some dead Chinese president does nothing to improve Jasper Becker’s credibility."

American Observer replies:

I associate you with Hitler because you are both flippant about genocide. As for 'obscure' Chinese scholars, who would you consider to be a 'prominent' Chinese scholar, and what does your 'prominent' Chinese scholar say about the 'Great Leap Forward?' And why exactly is it wrong to 'invoke' -- or, more precisely, QUOTE -- a Chinese president in a conversation about China? Who would know more about Chinese statistics than a president of China? Do you notice that you are so ignorant about Chinese history that you cannot quote any Chinese scholar or any Chinese president at all?

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"Since he is not a specialist of any kind..."

American Observer replies:

Jasper Becker is a specialist in Asian history and Asian events, IO, and Jasper Becker is a thousand times more qualified to interview Asian sources than, say, a psychologist would be, and Jasper Becker is a thousand times more qualified to interview Asian sources than, say, Naom Chomsky would be.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"It’s not that I want to impugn Becker’s journalistic integrity, the fact he’s a second rate story teller working for a Hong Kong tabloid notwithstanding..."

American Observer replies:

Can't you see how arrogant and dishonest you are? You begin your sentence by denying that you want to 'impugn Becker's journalistic integrity,' and then you complete your sentence by doing exactly that. You had never heard of Jasper Becker before I mentioned him, and you have never read a line of his writing. By what right or shadow of a right do you call him a 'story-teller?' Because, like Naom Chomsky, you think you think you are such a genius that you do not need to investigate any scholar before denouncing him?

And why do you even bother with an empty adjective like 'second-rate?' What is the difference between 'second-rate' and 'first-rate' in a context like this? Why put in a 'rate' at all? Are you just so drunk on your own egotism that you suck on each of your adjectives like a child sucking on candy?

You have furthermore shown your total ignorance of Asia by calling The South China Morning Post a tabloid, when The South China Morning Post does not fit EITHER definition of the word 'tabloid'; instead, it folds in quarters like most American newspapers, and it is one of the most respected journals in Asia; which you would know, if you had ever seen it, but of course you have not.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"According to UN census figures, China currently has a population of 1.3 Billion..."

American Observer replies:

My God, man, what do you mean by 'UN census figures?' The United Nations has never taken a census of China, because China is a Communist state, and the Chinese Communist Party would never allow an international organization to go around the hills and back country asking questions. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? When the UN gives population figures for China, the UN is merely repeating what the Chinese Communist Party has told them, and the figures from the Chinese Communist Party are always lies.

As you SHOULD know, local Chinese officials are responsible for holding down population growth in their districts, and they are punished if they fail; so the local officials hide and misreport a lot of births, and the figures that they give the central government are always too low. (Anybody who knows history will recognize the pattern of fake figures which runs across all Communist societies.) All Chinese experts agree that the real population of China is at least three hundred million people higher, for a total of one point six billion. If you are too stupid to recognize the obvious truth of that, go find an expert of your own and look it up.

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"That’s more than 3 fold increase in a 60-yr span."

American Observer replies:

Exactly. This has happened in human populations many times before. (Colonial Quebec and Colonial Virginia are good examples.) If you go look it up, you will find that the population of Algeria increased roughly EIGHT-fold in the same time period. Really! Go look it up!

'Intellectual' Observer claims:

"If Jasper’s claim has even a shred of truth to it, then the Chinese government wasted way too much time worrying about over population."

American Observer replies:

Go read what I just wrote. Then, if you are still confused, try to learn elementary multiplication. (Did you skip third grade?) Remember, in the state of nature human populations routinely have six babies per woman. According to United Nations figures, this birth rate was still standard across the developing world in the year 1960, and this rate can triple the population in each generation. Multiply that across three generations, and you are lucky if you don't increase the population by twenty-seven fold. Of course in nature the population rarely increases quite that fast, because there is usually a Yellow River Famine or a Second World War or a Great Leap Forward to kill tens of millions of people and keep the population from doing more than tripling or quadrupling.

As you probably know, sometimes populations do contract as well. Obviously, epidemics from Eurasia lowered the population of native Americans until the 1890s, when the population of Native Americans finally began to rebound. And, of course, Stalin killed twenty million Soviets during the Great Terror and the forced collectivization of the nineteen-thirties, and with the loss of thirty million during the Second World War, that was fifty million dead outright; and, if you add in the four children per female that those dead people might have had in a healthy society, well, you can see how the numbers add up. The Russian historian and statistician Alexander Solzhenitsyn blames the Russian Communist Party not only for the purges and the forced collectivization, but also for signing the treaty with the Germany which allowed the Nazis to start the Second World War, so Alexander Solzhenitsyn has correctly observed that the population of the Russian Empire wound up being one hundred million people smaller than it would have been if the Communist Party had never come into being.

So, 'Intellectual' Observer, you need to use your intellect a lot harder. If you are surprised to know that one in nine Chinese died during the Great Leap Forward, you should not be surprised. If you are surprised to know that the Great Leap Forward killed more Chinese than the Second World War, you should not be. If you knew anything about the history of Communism, you would know that such death tolls are common in the history of Communism. Ask the Ukraininans! Ask the Cambodians! Ask the Chechens! Ask the Latvians! Per capita, all of those nations actually suffered worse under Communism.

'Intellectual' Observer, your response has the same arrogant stink as the writing of Naom Chomksy, and I now know your character so well that I am certain you will be flattered by the comparison. Like Naom Chomsky, you feel so confident of your genius that you never have to read history books or pay attention to experts. Instead, you can denounce an expert that you have never read, you can denounce a newspaper of which you have never heard before I mentioned it, and you can flip around bogus numbers like a child estimating his allowance. You are good at tossing around god-like rhetoric, but you never allow a historian or a journalist or a statistic to get in the way of your self-righteous drivel.

To A.O.

Associating me with Hitler, or quoting some obscure scholars, or invoking some dead Chinese president does nothing to improve Jasper Becker’s credibility. The fact remains, according to you, Jasper Becker made an extraordinary claim that “the Chinese…ate their own children in the millions”. Inevitably the burden of proof rests on him. Since he is not a specialist of any kind – that could qualify him to make the kind of claims that he made, nor did he bring a specialist with him on his “research trips”, nor did he dig up any “mass graves” – hence no physical evidence, I have every right to question his sensational claims. It’s not that I want to impugn Becker’s journalistic integrity, the fact he’s a second rate story teller working for a Hong Kong tabloid notwithstanding, his numbers just don’t add up. According to UN census figures, China currently has a population of 1.3Billion, and at the end of Chinese civil war, the population stood at 400 million. That’s more than 3 fold increase in a 60-yr span. Presumably, that growth could be much higher had Chinese government not instituted the one child policy in the 70’s. If Jasper’s claim has even a shred of truth to it, then the Chinese government wasted way too much time worrying about over population. Or maybe, the sinister Chinese government inflated their population numbers to cover up the fact that “the Chinese ate millions of their own children”… Come on American observer, stop making a fool of yourself and start using that pea sized brain you got left from your unsuccessful lobotomy

To A.O.
Associating me with Hitler, or quoting some obscure scholars, or invoking some dead Chinese president does nothing to improve Jasper Becker’s credibility. The fact remains, according to you, Jasper Becker made an extraordinary claim that “the Chinese…ate their own children in the millions”. Inevitably the burden of proof rests on him. Since he is not a specialist of any kind – that could qualify him to make the kind of claims he made, nor did he bring a specialist with him on his “research trips”, nor did he dig up any “mass graves” – hence no physical evidence, I have every right to question his sensational claims. It’s not that I want to impugn Becker’s journalistic integrity, the fact he’s a second rate story teller working for a Hong Kong tabloid notwithstanding, his numbers just don’t add up. According to UN census figures, China currently has a population of 1.3Billion, and at the end of Chinese civil war, the population stood at 400 million. That’s more than 3 fold increase in a 60-yr span. Presumably, that growth could be much higher had Chinese government not instituted the one child policy in the 70’s. If Jasper’s claim has even a shred of truth to it, then the Chinese government wasted way too much time worrying about over population. Or maybe, the sinister Chinese government inflated their population numbers to cover up the fact that “the Chinese ate millions of their own children”… Come on American observer, stop making a fool of yourself and start using that pea sized brain you got left from your unsuccessful lobotomy

'Intelligent' Observer says:

"So what? He’s not a social anthropologist; he’s not a forensic scientist; he’s not a statistician; he’s not psychologist; he’s not an archeologist… So I ask you again, what makes him the self-appointed expert on "Chinese cannibalism"?"

American Observer says:

What a cutting criticism! And it turns out that Jasper Becker did his research in the eighties, while there were still plenty of living witnesses! Unfortunately, Becker was only a world-class journalist with a tape recorder -- not a 'social antropologist' or a 'forensic scientist' or a 'statistician' or a 'psychologist' or an 'archaeologist!' Too bad he did not bring a 'social antropologist' or a 'forensic scientist' or a 'statistician' or a 'psychologist' or an 'archaeologist!' Too bad he did not bring the entire United Nations! Unfortunately, China is a police state, and the situation was even worse than it is now, so he could not bring those things. It seems that Communists have a funny attitude towards people who go digging into mass graves.

'Intelligent' Observer, how have you gotten to be old enough to use a computer so glibly without knowing anything about Chinese history at all? Harrison Salisbury quotes Zhao Ziyang, the late president of the People's Republic of China, as saying that forty-eight to fifty-two million Chinese died in the Great Leap Forward. IO, how do you think those people died, and more importantly, how do you think the rest of the Chinese farmers survived?

Now, judging by the arrogance and ignorance you have shown on this page, you probably don't know who Harrison Salisbury was, or who Zhao Zi-yang was, or what the Great Leap Forward was. At this point you have a choice -- you could go to google.com or wikipedia.com and look those things up, or you could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the bedsheet boys who deny the Holocaust.

Police states have always done their best to destroy all the witnesses to their crimes, and then relied on the arrogance and ignorance of people like you to complete the cover-ups for them. It worked for the Turks in Armenia, it worked for the Soviets in Chechenya, and it would have worked for your friend Hitler, if your friend Hitler had not been overthrown by foreign powers. If you 'question' any part of the Chinese Holocaust, go get any standard history of China and try to understand the outlines of the Great Leap Forward, and then read 'Hungry Ghosts' to understand the rest.

A.Observer wrote
"Jasper Becker is the Beijing Bureau Chief for the South China Morning Post, the largest English-language newspaper in Hong Kong"
So what? He’s not a social anthropologist; he’s not a forensic scientist; he’s not a statistician; he’s not psychologist; he’s not an archeologist… So I ask you again, what makes him the self-appointed expert on "Chinese cannibalism"?
Unless you are quoting your numbers from a published UN Study, I would have to categorically reject that “Chinese…eating their own children in the millions” as nothing more than hearsay. At least Jasper Beck made a few bucks by selling his lies. What do you get from repeating his lies?

As for your snide remark about Chomsky, I will not comment. I believe Noam’s work speaks for itself. The only thing I will add is that maybe Chomsky’s impeccable logic is beyond the grasp of you infantile brain.

To the promoters of "soft power":

This website and blogspace would be inoperable or shut down by soft-power devotees in China or Iran. Perhaps you could blog by carrier pigeon, assuming that a starving peasant would not intercept and eat it.

No free speech and no free exchange of ideas for the common man and woman living in a soft-power world. They simply cannot be trusted.

If you are a journalist living in a soft-power environment, well you can cowardly espouse the soft-power party line like Islamist Ali Ettefagh or end up courageously shot dead (Russia), imprisoned (China), or missing or imprisoned (Iran). So much for freedom of the press in the soft-power world.

Here are some examples of recent Russian "soft power": claiming the North pole; threatening to cutoff natural gas (during the winter) to its neighbors who chart independence; murdering journalists; unsucessfully poisoning a presidential candidate in a neighboring country and then succesfully radioactively poisoning an expatriate in England; and selling impotent missile and radar systems to Syria and Iran.

Here are some recent examples of recent Chinese "soft power": enabling the Darfur massacre by supporting the Sudanese government with investments, arms, and oil revenues; poisoning its citizens so that 300 million lack local drinking water and 30,000 per day die of lung cancer (and poisoning Russian rivers and cities, to boot); censoring the internet, paper publications, and speech; imprisoning dissidents; and threating to destroy Taiwan as part of a national unification (liquidation) plan.

Here are some recent examples of Iranian "soft power": manufacturing copper-shielded IEDs to murder our troops; beheading Baha'is and homosexuals; murdering and imprisoning students and dissidents; suppressing women by limiting their opportunities (be it dress, religious practices, or educational opportunities); claiming Bahrain as an Iranian province to be returned by any means necessary; and creating nuclear weapons to commit mass murder of Jewish and Arab citizens living in a UN member state (Israel) in violation of the U.N. charter.

Contrary to the premise of the spokesman for the Islamic Republic of Iran (Ali Ettefagh), that America needs to be restrained, it seems that America, its allies, and the UN have been napping.

Finally, for those who cannot figure out if they prefer the soft-power politics and prospects of a Mafia paradise (Russia), an exploitive mercantilist paradise (China), or an Islamic paradise (Iran) to that of an open and virile America, then where would you rather live, virile America or a soft Russia, China, or Iran?

'Intelligent' Observer says:

"I don't know who the Jasper Becker is"

American Observer replies:

Jasper Becker is the Beijing Bureau Chief for the South China Morning Post, the largest English-language newspaper in Hong Kong. Jasper Becker is also a first-rate scholar whose books on China are read and respected all over the world.

'Intelligent' Observer says:

"I suggest that you go read some real books like "Hegemony and Survival" and "failed state", by Noam Chompsky."

American Observer says:

As I have said before, Naom Chomsky is the Bobby Fischer of linguistics. Like Fischer, Chomsky is able to dedicate his twisted brain completely to a narrow field which has no connection to anything in the outside world; but when he leaves that field, Chomsky gives nothing except paranoid drivel. That is why Bobby Fischer and Naom Chomsky are despised by all serious journalists and political scientists.

Bravo Intelligent Observer!
Gee... and I thought all of those American TV shows, a.k. news, are reality!

A.Observer wrote
"I hope you are being sarcastic! However, if there is anyone out there who is so ignorant that he does not know about cannibalism in China, then I suggest that he go to Amazon.com and look up Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine
by Jasper Becker"
Since it's on Amazon.com, so it must be true, right, right? I don't know who the Jasper Becker is. But I'm pretty damn sure he was not in China from 1958 to 61. So remind me again what exactly makes him a self-appointed world expert on "Chinese Cannibalism" that I have to believe every word he wrote? What, that 2 trips he took to China? Give me a break. Anyone with IQ of 50 can see through his work for what it is - a piece of sensational journalism spiced up with some old fashion China bashing (and probably not worth the paper it's written on, I mgiht add).

American Observer, when you are done reading Jasper Becker;s master piece of fiction, I suggest that you go read some real books like "Hegemony and Survival" and "failed state", by Noam Chompsky. Maybe it'll help to dislodge some of the strange ideas that spoon fed to you by the warmongers at AEI, and the war criminal that's occupying in the white house.

YTS says:

"Every in Washington one knows that Robin Wright is a 2nd league writer going around aimlessly and on the payroll of AIPAC. "

American Observer replies:

Whether you like Robin Wright or not, YTS, the Taliban do not have enough technology to make armor-piercing bombs by themselves. The US military either intercepted an Iranian shipment or they did not -- there is no room for bias, and there is no middle ground.

The world is changing. We see the breakdown of many presumptions and old structures. Americans are still stuck in the past, some 30-40 years ago. So, I think the writer is correct about the 1960s-1970s era.

You play, you pay
That is the only thng I can said.

You loose, go home
That's when all your money are gone.

The world will balance itself out, one way or the other.

Dear American Observer,
You seem to be taking things too personally. Every in Washington one knows that Robin Wright is a 2nd league writer going around aimlessly and on the payroll of AIPAC.
She wrote mindless articles in The Post to show that Haleh Esfandiari was being harshly treated in an Iranian prison for espionage, etc. If you read today's Post, you can read that Mrs. Esfandiari is negating all of that in her own words from DC:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401967.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The Washington Post reports today:

"Arms Flow Between Iran, Taliban Escalating

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 15, 2007; 12:18 PM

An Iranian arms shipment destined for the Taliban was intercepted on Sept. 6 by the international force in Afghanistan in what appears to be an escalating flow of weaponry between the two former enemies, according to officials from countries in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

The shipment included armor-piercing bombs known as explosively formed projectiles, which have been especially deadly when used as roadside bombs against foreign troops in Iraq, the sources said. The NATO-led force interdicted two smaller shipments of similar weapons coming from Iran into southern Helmand province on April 11 and May 3.

....

Iran, a Shiite-dominated country, has long opposed the Taliban, a Sunni group with different ideas. Their cooperation is based on common opposition to foreign and particularly Western troops in Afghanistan, according to the United States and officials from other countries in the force.

"They're playing with the enemy. They have no love lost for the Taliban. The Taliban killed several Iranian diplomats. We believe it's about hurting the Americans and the international community," an official from one of the participating countries said on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence."

You can see the whole article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/15/AR2007091500803.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

American Observer comments:

Wow -- the Iranians and the Taliban are natural enemies. Seeing the Iranians send arms to the Taliban is like seeing the Nazis send arms to the Soviets. What the Iranians are doing is not only malicious, it is stupid and irrational.

But it is typically Iranian. Some people on this board have suggested that Iran would never do anything as crazy as build a nuclear weapon, and some people on this board have suggested that Iran would never do anything as crazy as use that nuclear weapon, or give it to someone else to use it. Of course, today's news shows that is nonsense. It is clear that Iranians are motivated only by egotism and malice, like like the Al-Qaeda, and reason will not work with them. We don't need to negotiate with the Iranians; we need to keep the sanctions and make them tighter.

Wow....those American posters are really on the edge here. I proves the writer's point, I guess. It is a tough time to be the president of USA and American.

Isolationism in this global village is a guaranteed loser!

Oh, finally, Crazy Ivan, I want to say that I hate to take a final jab at such a helpless target. I want to say it, but I cannot, because it would be a lie -- the truth is, I am enjoying it so much that I am giggling while I type.

Crazy Ivan says:

"Then observe what happens when the world will call in your treasury bonds, not sell you any more goods including oil."

American Observer says:

Crazy Ivan, I know you are completely ignorant of current affairs, but are you also incapable of ordinary logic? If the world 'stopped selling America oil,' then 'the world' would have removed American demand from the market, and the total 'demand' would fall. The supply, however, would not fall, and so the laws of supply and demand would force the price of oil lower. The result is that the oil sheiks would lose a lot of money, which they could probably afford, because the oil kingdoms have a lot of oil and few people. However, there are a number of other countries with large populations, such as Nigeria and Russia and Venezuela, and those countries are so corrupt and intellectually incapable that their economies are wholly dependent on the price of oil. If the price of oil fell even twenty or thirty percent, their desperate people would line up at soup kitchens and beg people to buy their shoes and blankets just so they could get enough money to buy food. That is why the world will never stop selling oil or anything else to America. Oh, this nation or that might switch customers, but if Russia sells more to Japan, then Indonesia will sell more to America, and so forth; and though the supply lines may switch and change in minor ways, the Russians and the Nigerians and the other desperate nations will never do anything to force America out of the market -- their own people would starve if they did.

Crazy Ivan, I did my best to make that slow and simple enough for you. However, if you need it slower or more simple, please let me know.

Crazy Ivan, your name suits you as well as the screen name of 'Bimbo' suited her. Let's look:

Crazy Ivan says:

"Then observe what happens when the world will call in your treasury bonds, not sell you any more goods including oil."

American Observer replies:

You are completely clueless. America gives charity to starving nations because we want to help the hungry. However, the Chinese and the Japanese and the rest of the world do not buy our treasury bonds because they want to help us. Instead, they buy our treasury bonds because they desperately need a safe place to put their money -- a place which actually pays better interest than bank accounts do in their countries. If they could not buy our treasury bonds, the Chinese and Japanese would leave their capital in their central banks to rot until some desperate banker decided to lend it to speculators. The speculators would then start buying real estate until the real estate bubble had risen so far that it crashed and took their economies with it.

So, do you think the world will 'call our notes?' That would be a cold day in hell. The world will never dump our treasury bills, Crazy Ivan, because the world needs to buy them more than we need to sell them.

Crazy Ivan says:

"Have your sanctions against Iran, for example, worked? Obviously not!"

American Observer says:

Crazy Ivan, are you BLIND? The American sanctions have hurt the Iranians so badly that the Iranians cannot get investment or technical assistance for their oil industry. The American sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy so badly that there is talk of Iran having to cut its oil exports drastically. The American sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy so badly that the Iranians don't even have enough cash to pay you Russian trolls for the reactor that you are building for them, and you have stopped work precisely because the Iranians cannot keep paying you! The American sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy so badly that the Iranians are constantly begging third parties to make us lift them!

Crazy Ivan, do you read the newspaper at all? I mean, a real newspaper, and not just Pravda?

Dear Semperfi

Please, please carry thru with your promises/wishes and withdraw back to your own home country, keep your "billions" of aid to yourselves and put all the wagons in a circle. I beg you.

Then observe what happens when the world will call in your treasury bonds, not sell you any more goods including oil. The rest of the world will love it. A new financial centre will be set up and a new currency (since the USD will be worth less than now) will replace the USD. Will the sun come up the next day? Of course. Have your sanctions against Iran, for example, worked? Obviously not!

My point is that if you Americans want to live in an interdependent world, you must play by the same rules as every one else. Otherwise, just go back home and stay quiet.

Ben Graham:

There has been some unsubstantiated claim by the US military low ranking officials in Iraq with such claims.
And in the very same place, WP, readers have declined to take those seriously and sometimes those officials were subject to laugh too since they had not released their identities. These are all Mr. Graham war drum beats. I am sure you agree that US is already engaged in bitter covert and overt war with Iran inflicting sever economic harms to Iranians not for a single reason we hear in media but for the independent position Iran has adopted. The US, not only is intolerant of independence and disobedience but very fearful of losing another satellite client state and expansion of democracy in the region. Although I pray not but I be very surprised if Mr. Cheney leaves office without an attack on Iran. An attack that Iranians appropriately and correctly are taking seriously and are getting ready to defend themselves and retaliate severely and swiftly too. US or anyone else should not be under impression that it will be mission accomplished when all the bombs and missiles are dropped in Iran. I like to draw your attention to what the Iranian defense minister said recently. He said if America attacks it will be Iran who will finish it.
Mr. Graham : Since you seem to be very concerned about the safety of troops in Iraq may be you could tell me why they went in to begin with and why are they there now ?

Mr. Graham when Mr. Bin Laden sends a video out they play his audio in Arabic and we hear him when he makes his threats. However, in case of President Ahmadinejad we just hear what they say he said. By talking to people who have heard the tapes I am convinced his statements have been taken largely out of context.
I stand firm by my statement of fact, not a comment, regarding the Zionist and hardcore Jews and am by no means the first one to do so. It is worldwide acknowledged fact and understood. However your account of King Cyrus is quite true. But why the students in Iran are not taught that I really do not know. I will make an attempt to find out. I also do not know why we never hear about Jewish terrorists in Israel in late forties and likewise, when the Palestinians were forced out of their houses and eventually out of their country with guns behind their heads. Helping others are in Persian blood. At this very moment when United States is committing all sorts of crimes against the Iraqis, I invite you to find out on your own how many Iraqis, both Shias and Sunnis have received and are receiving medical treatments free of any charges in Iran. When Saddam's soldiers set the Kuwaitis oil fields on fire the Iranians were there first to assist putting them out while we never ever heard their name being mentioned even once while secretary Baker was too busy piling up the bills before he went to Saudi Arabia to collect the war costs.

The Iranian gov does execute people found guilty of crimes however I have yet to hear one has been sent to his or her death for his or her religious beliefs. I myself am against executions as well as killing of any human beings. I only advocate capital punishment in rare circumstances such as high treason.

Finally but not lastly, if the UN-sponsored Persian trusteeship ever takes place Iran will find itself in line for decades behind US while the UN is sorting out the crimes US has committed starting back to when it dropped the atomic bombs resulting in death of more than hundred thousands lives to its current unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq which has resulted in death of close to Seven hundred thousand Iraqi lives, more than four millions displaced, robbed of their only natural resources which the US had found out well before the Iraqis to be the second largest oil reserves in the world and of course the desovereigntization of a nation with such an ancient history.

You know, I usually don't read the articles posted by the WaPo's token Iranian mouthpiece, but I fall into this pit on occasion. The circular logic and finger pointing that goes on here is astounding, with the same arguements being pushed time and again. My position on the rest of the world after 30 years of travelling here and abroad for Uncle Sam and myself? They can all pound sand as far as I'm concerned. Please...go to China with all of your problems, including the billions spent on humanitarian aid the U.S. gives out each year. Go to Venezula for your technical expertise and innovation. Go to Iran with requests for troops to stop genocide in every little third world country. Please...let's just have the U.S. stop acting like EVERY COUNTRY IN HISTORY and not try to advance our own concerns or attempt to be dominate in our dealings with other countries. Lord knows the world will be a better place without the U.S. in it, so let's just pull back all of our troops from everywhere in the world; call back all of our humanitarian workers, with the cash and expertise they bring; send the U.N. to N. Korea and let them pay for it's upkeep and grant every little thug diplomatic immunity; and finally, let's stop investing in any country besides ourselves and nationalize the major industry sites majority-owned by outsiders (works for Venezuala, right?). The rest of the world always wants the U.S. to bail them out of a jam, but like the cop on the beat, they want to bad mouth us while we do their dirty work and don't want us around unless they call. Let China, Venezula, Iran and N. Korea give you the help you need. Think they do things out of the kindness of their hearts? Looking forward to your awakening to the way the human race really works.

Fred says:

"I know indeed the answers to these questions..."

American Observer says:

Ah, but you have not shared those answers with us. Are you afraid of losing your air of mystery?

Fred says:

"I for one, do not want to see Iran with the bomb..."

American Observer replies:

Good for you. If we can keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons through international pressure, then America and Israel will not have to destroy Iran's nuclear reactor in an air raid.

Fred says:

"....nor do I believe they are heading towards the bomb. "

American Observer replies:

You have given us no reason to agree with you, Fred.

Fred says:

"Iran is blessed with a much more potent weapon found no where else in the world, in case the situation demands it."

American Observer replies:

Are you really? Would this be one of those weapons that you used while you were losing a million dead in your war against Saddam?

Fred says:

"You further incorrectly but deliberately called and characterized all the armed factions in Iraq as insurgents."

American Observer replies:

The Maliki government was elected by the people of Iraq and the Maliki government has been recognized by the United Nations as the only legitimate government of Iraq. If some Iraqis don't like that government, they have the right to sign petitions and form parties and compete in elections, but they don't have the right to kill people. The militants making war against the Maliki government are insurgents and they are traitors and they deserve to be shot down and left to rot in the sun. I am sorry if that disturbs you, Fred; I am just saying the simple truth.

Fred says:

"And lets put aside what both of us think here for a moment and see what the neutral scientists, who are less often engaged in world political dialogues, as well as the world intellectuals including some Jewish ones, think about this topic. "They have called Iran a fool not to have the bomb"."

American Observer replies:

And who are these scientists, Fred? I promise you that everyone on this board would like to see the list.

American Observer :

"Fred, can you explain to us why a nation with more oil than any other in the world still does not have enough cracking towers to make gasoline for its own people?"
I know indeed the answers to these questions and my bet is the American observer is the only one who does not here. And perhaps if you tried to find out the answer and believe it I am certain you will adopt a more civil tone in your writings here which I have always found to be, some of the times, nothing more than the writings you find else where and use it here and other times irrelevant materials of no value to anyone. Anyone with the least amount of intelligence and common sense and class would refrain from posting immature headliners such as I WOULD LIKE TO HELP THIS FRED PERSON here. Not that I take any offense to this. I have always chosen to ignore the statements made by intellectually inferior people. these are valuable spaces provided by Washington Post for the reader to intellectually debate the writers article not to advertise his or her idiocy. in Vivian Salama's article you spent half a page explaining why Bush went to Iraq after 9/11,. In one line, I responded that the former treasury Mr. O'Neill wrote in his biography the Iraq agenda was on tables immediately after the inauguration . it is a worldwide acknowledged and accepted fact why the US went to Iraq and why it is there now and will remain there not only in Iraq but the rest of the gulf region too, till the last drop of oil is extracted in Iraq and the region before it will pull out the last soldier and personnel. The true Americans here have no hesitation to admitting this and are full of apologies and expressive of their sympathies for the Iraqi people. Only some certain class who have successfully hijacked the foreign policies of this country solely to benefit and promote their own cause and agendas which has no similarity to the American, but all at the American peoples expense, would share the same ideologies as yours.
You further incorrectly but deliberately called and characterized all the armed factions in Iraq as insurgents. I invited you to look up the dictionary and if you possess the least sense of the situation on grounds over there you would not apply that word describing the armed factions there. Further, you suggested in the same respond "I should have told the 2ndtour that the insurgents are traitors to the people of Iraq and the best thing he can do for the Iraqi people is to gun down the insurgents like the wild pigs they are." I apologized to you for declining to do such a thing since I know there are some who oppose the occupiers and are fending off the aggressors just like there would be in any other country if it was invaded and occupied.
but lets not stray too much from the core of issue on hand here. You have used a page basically to tell us Iran either wants or heading towards the bomb. I for one, do not want to see Iran with the bomb nor do I believe they are heading towards the bomb. Iran is blessed with a much more potent weapon found no where else in the world, in case the situation demands it. I likewise, do not wish to see Israel to possess the bombs and any other countries in the world too. I am a vegetarian with some selected sea food choices. I am against any human loss of lives regardless of their nationalities or religions. And lets put aside what both of us think here for a moment and see what the neutral scientists, who are less often engaged in world political dialogues, as well as the world intellectuals including some Jewish ones, think about this topic. "They have called Iran a fool not to have the bomb". To find out why, that will necessitate a much broad and open mind of the world politics perspective.

Faramarz Fathi, formerly known as Fred Bos, claims (1) that Iran is not supplying IEDs to kill our troops and (2) that Iranian threats to annihilate Israel are a fabrication of the Western media.

As to the IEDs, the copper-substance armor-piercing IEDs are manufactured by Iran and smuggled into Iraq to kill our troops. The proof is found in live testimony and those very weapons provided to Congress. In sum, Iran is supplying these weapons to murder our boys despite the empty protestations of Mr. Fathi/Bos.

As to the annihilation of Israel, these Iranian threats have come to us directly and repeatedly from the mouth of the president of Iran via Iranian media. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his fellow Islamic rulers seem rather proud of their prospective mass murder.

Mr. Fathi/Bos then makes a bizarre comment about Israel being a recent U.S./Zionist fabrication. Mr. Fathi/Bos, any college student can tell you that it was Persian King Cyrus who returned to the Jews to the land of Israel in the 6th century B.C. Is pre-Islamic or non-Islamic history, or both, not taught to students in Iran?

The Islamic paradise that is the Islamic Republic of Iran regularly beheads those of Baha'i faith and gays, murders dissenting students, suppresses women, and jails visiting U.S. citizens on trumped-up charges only to release them when paid ransom.

Each of these reasons is sufficient to establsh a UN-sponsored Persian trusteeship. All of these reasons makes it necessary to establish a UN-sponsored Persian trusteeship where basic civil rights are offered to all Persians regardless of creed, gender, sexual orientation, or nationality.

The comments and commentators above are probably very frequent customers of Starbucks and too uptight.

We just have to take the world as it is and how it is, not how one wants it to be, and not how America dictates. Americans have never been well-versed in foreign policy. They got a few decades of respect after the WWII, and that era is over and more importantly, the world has changed. However, Americans still think it is 1950s or 1960s-70s, as the writer has observed.

If there are no plans to fix and revive the places that are bombed (by Americans or other powers), then that will be translated as ill-will and lack of desire to live along side with the rest of the world.

Sheesh says:

"'m against the war, and I really, really, really hate President Bush."

American Observer replies:

Actually, I voted for Bill Clinton, twice, I voted for Al Gore, and I voted for John Kerry. After four years, I have deep doubts about continuing to spend American blood and money to keep to races of vicious Arabs from killing each other when they want to do it so much. So, perhaps we agree on more than you think.

Moving along, I would like to help this Fred person.

Fred, can you explain to us why a nation with more oil than any other in the world still does not have enough cracking towers to make gasoline for its own people? Can you explain why a nation with more oil than another in the world is selling oil overseas so it can buy gasoline from foreign powers at world prices, prices which are much higher than the price would be if Iran refined its own gasoline? Can you explain to us why a nation which desperately needs oil refineries is spending billions of dollars to buy a nuclear reactor from the Russians? And, can you explain, more than half a century into the nuclear age, why any one would need to do research with a breeder reactor?

Nuclear power is a mature technology, and doing research into nuclear power is like trying to figure out how many wheels an automobile needs. If the Iranians want to do research, why not spend their money on a cyclotron or a telescope or a hospital to work on cancer research? And if the Iranians want electricity, why buy a breeder reactor? Why not buy a light-water reactor, which makes more voltage and less radioactive waste?

The answers to all those questions are obvious, Fred. You would have to be completely ignorant of nuclear physics to find any mystery in any of them. I expect to hear the usual storm of guff, but I don't expect you to actually address any of my questions.

American Observer:
Quoting " And why is your own nation of Iran spending so many billions of dollars to build nuclear weapons?" End of quote.

Please tell me how you arrived with such a conclusion.

Bimbo, first off, anyone can post to this blog, so claiming that American Observer is representative of the American media in general doesn't make any sense. It's an objective fact that a pretty big majority of editorial boards in this country are against at least the handling of the war and very very pessimistic about the prospects for success; I would say most major, mainstream editorial boards are calling for significant pullbacks and many for immediate withdrawal. It's also pretty undeniable that the general news coverage in America of the war is negative, seeing as how the news from Iraq and the on-the-ground developments are almost uniformly negative. In the run-up and aftermath of Petraeus' testimony this week, if you read commentary from newspaper columnists, editorials, or letter-writers (the last being regular people who write in, not employed by newspapers), there were basically two responses: first, that he was probably going to lie or at least mask the truth, and second, that he was an honorable man but nonetheless in the employ of the administration, and thus couldn't be totally trusted to give a full picture. Neither view is sympathetic to the war. Americans in general and the press in general as well are against the war, and most are also for withdrawal. If you actually seriously paid attention to American media, you would know that.

Second, you never actually made a point. You asserted that we were under herd behavior, but you didn't refute anything I said or anything anyone else said. My point remains: The U.S. obviously believes in hard power, but so do most countries in the world. That's a self-evident fact. Darden Cavalcade made a nice series of points on hard and soft power, in case you didn't read his post thoroughly. The U.S. also exercises a lot of soft power in addition to the military power it projects. Frankly, most of the reason that the European states, or Russia, or China, or basically any country in the world does not project in the same way the U.S. does is because they just don't have the ability. It's not just a coincidence that the European empires definitively fell once they stopped being able to dominate (think about the Suez Crisis, which Britain and France abandoned under U.S. pressure); and ask yourself honestly how comfortable Taiwan and Tibet or Chechnya — not to mention Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltic states — would be if China or Russia got the kind of power the U.S. has.

I don't agree with American Observer on most of his points, I'm against the war, and I really, really, really hate President Bush. However, I think you, as well as the author of this piece, are taking a simplistic view of power and the international system. It's one thing to claim Americans are militaristic (I don't believe they are, but that's another argument) and another to claim no one else is. Ask yourself honestly what would happen to world stability if American security guarantees were to simply disappear. That's not to say that American pressure can force any outcome or prevent any war — it's to say that American pressure still definitely makes a difference, and that potential pariahs take that into account. People were watching in 1991 when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait, and that didn't prevent ALL wars, but it probably prevented some.

That said, I hope to God the next president is much smarter in developing serious, positive ties to the rest of the world, reinforcing our standing democratic friendships and seriously rolling back the infringements this president has made against American civil rights and human rights for prisoners of war in the custody of the U.S. The reputation of the country obviously matters, and in destroying the good name of and the good will towards the U.S., this president has run counter to the desires of most of the population, significantly harming long-term U.S. interests, as well as harming the advance of democracy.

Bimbo says:

"If it has not won the Iraq war, then it is time to give up the title as "superpower". Can't have it both ways."

American Observer replies:

Bimbo, I am confused. What does the word 'superpower' mean in your language?

It is most amusing to see comments of American Observer--in an American newspaper. And somehow, this observer considers it some sort of a religious duty to reply to every point mentioned by every one else......take it easy, take some blood pressure medicine. This is a forum for civilised debate, not monologues or arguments!

The reality out there in the world is that America has isolated itself. How? By its own policies that are shortsighted. If it has not won the Iraq war, then it is time to give up the title as "superpower". Can't have it both ways.

Bimbo says:

"American media has transformed from being an abitrator to a confirmer of U.S. policy--- not to differnt from the USSR."

American Observer replies:

Actually, the American press has been against the Iraq war since at least 2004, and the American press bitterly hates the current American president. If you doubt that, you should try reading an American newspaper some time, and not just repeating the Russian view of the American press.

Bimbo says:

"For more than 4 years, it has not been able to win against a disbanded and disarmed Iraqi army (known as insurgents) or a bunch of unorganised poorly trained, albeit strong believers, extremists."

American Observer says:

If America has lost the war, let Saddam, Uday, Qusay, and Mustapha march back from hell and say it. If America has lost the war, let's see Iraq invade Kuwait again, or let's see if the Sunni will ever be able to gas entire Kurdish villages and bulldoze them into trenches again.

Bimbo says:

"Secondly, the Israelis lost a war to another militia in Lebanon. "

American Observer replies:

If Israel 'lost' the war that shattered Lebanon, why is it that the Hezbollah have never dared to capture another Israeli hostage since then? If Israel failed to destroy the Hezbollah on the ground, the Israelis still terrified the Hezbollah enough that the Hezbollah will stay on their side of the border.

The American posters above are suffering from herd behaviour. I can't blame them really, as they are exposed to heavy propaganda from their own press. American media has transformed from being an abitrator to a confirmer of U.S. policy--- not to differnt from the USSR.

But he cold fact remains that this mega-superpower has lost its gilt-edged glory: For more than 4 years, it has not been able to win against a disbanded and disarmed Iraqi army (known as insurgents) or a bunch of unorganised poorly trained, albeit strong believers, extremists. Secondly, the Israelis lost a war to another militia in Lebanon. The myth of their hard power has evaporated, and their real hard power is shown to be different from what is advertised.

What American taxpayers get for their money, I have no idea!

Just a few points:

Soft power is the power to persuade, the power to attract allies, the power to have one's good faith accepted on faith. Hard power is the power to coerce economically, politically, or with armed force.

American soft power is far from depleted even though many national publics have rejected the notion that the United States acts in any interest but its own. The United States government routinely persuades other governments, whose publics dislike the United States and Americans, to enter joint efforts to achieve common objectives. Often they do this without fanfare, but occasionally it occurs with banner headlines (for example, the Six-Party Talks on Korea and the EU-3+ efforts regarding the Iranian nuclear program). The global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism (30+ member states), the proliferation security initiative (60+), and UN Resolution 1540 (the entire world)...all related to staunching the spread of nuclear weapons and stopping nuclear terrorism...are examples of American soft power in action during a time of wide public distrust of the U.S. government.

American hard power is far from hegemonic in any category. And military power in general is a lot less useful than people thought after Desert Storm. Nevertheless, American aircraft carriers off the coasts of the Middle East and Near East are silently welcomed by many governments even if their publics are less than thrilled. And American arms are welcomed warmly and eagerly sought nearly everywhere...the United States is the largest arms merchant in the world. If the United States leaves the Middle East and interstate warfare breaks out, as many worry will happen, some of the parties in the conflict will be using American weapons, American military advice, and American logistics support. Those parties will have advantages, the advantages that hard power confers.

I hope the U.S. leaves Iraq soon. I hope Iraqis pull together rather than farther apart. I hope interstate warfare doesn't break out in the region. But the United States isn't going to leave the Middle East even if it leaves Iraq. And its power, soft and hard, will continue to be felt there for decades, maybe centuries.

Ben Graham:
Quoting "An Islamic Republic of Iran, mind you, that specializes in projecting "soft power" through its IEDs to kill our troops in Iraq, hoped-for nuclear weapons to obliterate Israel" End of quote.
Despite all these relentless and manufactured propagandas accusing Iran of supplying the Iraqi resistant fighters with arms and in particular the IEDs, solely to cover their shortcomings in their dire attempt to get their hands on the second largest oil reserves in the world, the Americans have found a convenient and close adversary to point fingers at, I am certain Iran is staying neutral. everyone except those who take the American media seriously and are too willing and ready to swallow what the american Media are asked to convey to, know the Iraqis are not only quite capable to defend themselves and fend off any aggressions directed at them but they are too proud to share the defense of their country with anyone else.
Further, I do not recall seeing any Americans raising eye brows when saddam with no red flag from US but lots of support such as letting the flow of unlimitted arms to Iraq while Iran was isolated and encouraging the entire gulf region excluding Syria to support saddam so the war could be sustained and its main contribution to the death of close to one million Iranian and I must add with committing atrocities unprecedented in human wars history, was the suppy of intelligence to saddam so that the Iranian advances could be halted.
While six years ago when more than Three thousands innocent lives were lost in this country the Iranian communities expressed their profound condemnations and poured in their sympathies for the victims through their tv Channels and every local, state and national papers, this can easily be verified Mr.graham by calling your local and state as well as the national papers to confirm it. And how many other nations can you name to have held candle nights ceremonys to mourn and pray for the victims in 2001 and on each anniversary thereafter. The Iranians have much in common with the true Americans here. with respect to obliterating Israel you can find propagands like that in tv channels and prints whose name of owners, and editors have much resemblance with yours. Not anywhere else. The Iranians strongly believe any unjust will undo itself.
As for UN sponsored Persian trusteeship let me first clarify one thing. Please do not allow yourself to be called an American to begin with. Your statement and wish is so unAmerican. Only the Zionist and Jews who have built a country here within a country to advance and promote their own agendas which by the way have nothing in common with the American values and needless to mention, all at the American peoples expenses, entertain such wishful thinking.
Persia has at least 2500 years history and America barely 250 years. If we all have a lesson to learn from history it is that the Empires built and based on tyranny and despotism are the subject of the history studying itself. Persian has been there, is here and is going strong too.

Your comments are so true. I live in New Zealand and here we have had a long positive relationship with the states but post Bush this has turned to distain and rejection. Frankly the states is perceived as being a bully state with nothing but selfish motives- global warming policies for instance appear to be driven by the idea that we will fix it as long we don't have to stop adding to it- the war on terroism is the excuse for all acts of aggression and anti humanitiarism- civil rights and human dignity have to be weighted against blatant self interest.
This is such a sad state of affairs, we should be almost natural allies but instead we like, the rest of the world, seem to be left asking when will the light come on and the USA see the cost of these Hard Power policies.

12345 says:

"Secondly, you forget how America tried, and failed, to isolate China and India in the 1950s to 1990s."

American Observer replies:

Your statement is as far from the truth as night is from day. America did not try to isolate China and India. Instead both of those nations successfully isolated themselves. China isolated itself by rejecting American capitalism and trying to 'exceed British steel production' with backyard steel furnaces. The result was famine and death for millions of people in China. India isolated itself by rejecting American capitalism and embracing the childish and shameful doctrine of swaraj -- 'self-reliance.' As you know, Nehru drove out foreign investors and insisted on an 'Indian Model of Development' -- a model which trapped India in an annual growth rate of only three or four percent a year, a stagnation which came to be known as 'the Hindu growth rate' because Leftists tried to blame India's failure on India's culture, rather than on Nehru's policies. The childish antics of leaders like Nehru and Indira Ghandi trapped hundreds of millions of people in ignorance and malnutrition for generations.

Now, thank heaven, Indian society is embracing American corporations and American culture, and the people of India are lifting themselves out of the gutters of Swaraj with an annual growth rate more than twice what they suffered in the time of Nehru. All of India's accomplishments over the last twenty years come from rejecting Nehru and Swaraj, and embracing American corporations and the American model.

America has supported both India and Pakistan over the years, in the hopes that a balance can be achieved in that region. With a nuclear India and a nuclear Pakistan a reality, foreign policy must shift periodically to make sure that not one of these nations become overwhelmingly "powerful" in its own eyes. Indian and Pakistani adventurism was bad enough in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Every administration has sought to temper the natural tendencies of those nations to annihilate one another.

I don't believe that Bush was the president in the 1950's to 1990's. China and India were pawns in the chess game between the West and the Soviet state. Leaders there are pragmatic enough to realize that economic opportunity lies with continued good ties with Washington.

If our efforts to find a madman has failed so far, it is because of a perhaps miguided belief in repecting another nation's sovereignty.

The poster above has put the past and present, history and finance and economy and all other retail junk news in one giant blender and let it rip!

Dude, take it easy. The isolation of America is its own making. It has embarked on a doctrine that has never worked in world history. If war could work, there would be more of it.

Secondly, you forget how America tried, and failed, to isolate China and India in the 1950s to 1990s. Ditto for the British when they were forced to give up in India. Just because a few junk bond salesmen on Wall Street now jump up and down to hype up China and India does not mean that Indians and Chinese people have forgotten about the attitude of Americans against them, only 15 years ago. People in the East are good students of history, going back to centuries.

This same American administration was trying to fabricate a big, giant, unmanagable threat out of China before 9-11. Now, and 6 years later, the same administration has not been able to find a lunatic in Afghan mountains.

A dose of reality, isn't it?

Why do you insist that America has become disengaged with the rest of the world? Are you seriously suggesting that Hugo Chavez a benevolent leader, not the ruthless dictator that he truly is? That the United States and Europe will really allow Iran to become the major power in the region? All this bellicose criticism of Washington, while Iran sends its cabal of terrorist fighters to Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

As far as I know, North Korea did not, all of a sudden, decide to open up its nuclear facilities for inspection without a long, painful, measured negotiation with Washington, China, Japan and its neighbors. In the end, patience seems to have opened the door, ever so slightly, towards a peaceful drawdown of North Korean nuclear ambitions. Much more has to be done, but progress is being made.

Do you really think that America would still be in Iraq if Sunni extremists steeped in al Queda doctrine, or Shia terrorists supported by the ruthless dictatorship of Iranian "holy men" were not actively undermining American good will. Yes, I say good will. I truly believe that this administration was desirous of bringing about a better world for the average Iraqi. What they did not prepare for and did not adequately meet is the response of peoples whose authoritarian lifestyle is threatened by the nascent democracy that America sought to create in the region.

When people seek to discredit this administration, they always, always, always point to Vietnam. The United States under this administration has expanded relations and trade with Vietnam. American dialogue with their Vietnamese counterparts have improved. American companies are actively involved in Vietnam and in other parts of the region. Your myopia seems to be directed at establishing credence that America is so distracted with Iraq that it cannot function anywhere else. That assertion, sir, is not backed up by facts.

Intel, an American corporation, is building an advanced chip fabrication plant in China. Numerous other American companies are heavily invested in the Chinese mainland. It is true that Chinese industry is having more success in selling its products overseas. Remember, though, that the world economy has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade and no one nation can possibly supply all the world's needs. The rise of Chinese influence was never in question.

A lone superpower makes it an easy target for critics around the world. When Iran does more than export bombs (usually tied to so called martyrs), then perhaps peace has a chance in that region. Unfortunately, Iranian compliance with human decency, Iranian respect for other beliefs and ways of life will not be possible as long as the religous orthodoxy continues to rule with such an iron hand. Iran, which produces more oil that it can consume, imports much of its fuels from other nations. It lacks the facilities to refine its own products. Perhaps when they finally run out of oil (not too far in the future), they can concentrate more in the betterment of its own citizens instead of propagating death in a region that has know far too much death.

Posts above have confused soft power with not having power.....all those that have power, exercise it. The art is how.
The idea of being a hammer and all others are nails is too simplistic, and stupid.

To American Observer:

In fact, we do have enough gasoline to put in our cars, at a grand bargain of $0.10 a liter, vs. the $1+ that you Yanks must fork over. The rationing system has killed off the smuggling business. We are also prepared to live without gasoline. Can you? Looks like you Americans are prepared to die for oil, as seen in Iraq! Alas, no cigar so far, eh?

JRLR Says:

"Reminds me of the Yellow Peril episode of yesteryears. "

American Observer replies:

I hope you are being sarcastic! However, if there is anyone out there who is so ignorant that he does not know about cannibalism in China, then I suggest that he go to Amazon.com and look up

Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine
by Jasper Becker

You can buy the book at http://www.amazon.com/Hungry-Ghosts-Maos-Secret-Famine/dp/0805056688/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8823432-5662251?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189539115&sr=8-1

I am reprinting Amazon.com's introduction to the book, below. Quote:

Amazon.com
This first authoritative expose of the 1958-1962 famine prompted by China's collectivization plan, "The Great Leap Forward," comes at a time when the cult of Mao is alive and well inside China, and while agents of Chinese influence are able to arrange audiences with a President. Via his painstaking research and reporting that included two treks through interior Chinese provinces, Becker tells how the famine occurred because ill-trained peasants were forced to undertake a gigantic and centralized industrial and agricultural expansion. The new factories, canals, and irrigation systems failed spectacularly, and in contrast to propaganda boasts of having economically outstripped the U.S., when in reality the populace was driven by starvation to cannibalism, slavery, and madness.

Unquote

I know China well, but even I was shocked by the reports of how millions of people survived Mao's rule by eating their own relatives. The accounts of people killing and eating children are especially horrifying, but you should be strong enough to read the entire book; "Hungry Ghosts" is the best introduction you will ever find to Chinese history and culture.

"... the Chinese ... eating their own children -- in the millions."

Reminds me of the Yellow Peril episode of yesteryears. Never thought I would be reminded of it under a Washington Post headline, though...

This only goes to show what a great future China has.

You're missing the point, Dear Leader. I don't have to deny American militarism to prove what I'm saying (although I do think that's an oversimplification, to say the least). My point is that it's ridiculous to characterize the foreign policies of every other country other than the U.S. as peaceful, soft-power focused. The absurdity is so self-evident I don't even feel the need to give examples.

I don't think America is on the right track (I know it may shock you to learn this, but not all Americans are the same), I never supported the Iraq war and I definitely did not vote for President Bush. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the world is a complicated place, and it's just stupid to claim that the U.S. is unique in believing in "hard power." China's military budget is rising much faster than its economy is growing, if you need a concrete example. The only reason China or Russia might negotiate these days is because they don't have the power to just take what they want; with that in mind, I think it's a very worthy goal to make sure they don't get that power. Whether soft power means something or not, just about every country in the world recognizes the importance of military strength as well — the only POSSIBLE exceptions are some of the European states, which don't have to worry about their military as much because they know the U.S. will help them if they ever get in serious trouble.

We don't want a nuclear-armed North Korea, just like South Korea, China and Japan don't want a nuclear-armed North Korea, because a) we're against nuclear proliferation in general; b) North Korea is one of the most terrible regimes on the face of the earth, acts almost totally unpredictably on the world stage, and is led by a guy whose sanity nobody is really totally sure about, and giving it nuclear weapons and the capability to destroy, say, Tokyo, the largest city in the entire world, just doesn't seem like that good of an idea.

Persian Redneck says:

"....what are you smoking, I'd like to know?"

American Observer replies:

We are smoking gasoline. What about you? Do you Iranians have enough to fill your cars?

Ben Graham, ....what are you smoking, I'd like to know?

You, presumably an American, are still stuck in the mud in Afghanistan and Iraq. Badly! And I guess you have proven the author's point of American militarism.

And, by the way on this 9-11 anniversay (starting year 7), have you Yanks been able to find bin Laden?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/books/11kaku.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1189527231-ZphRjf26HWGjrbAcyDQ34Q

Dear Leader says:

"America is pushing very hard to disarm North Korea because it does not want a nuclear armed united Korea, no?"

American Observer replies:

NO, and double NO. America wants to keep North Korea from getting nuclear weapons because North Korea is a terrorist state with whom America is technically at war. America feels that the best answer to the North Korean problem is Korean unification. America wants immediate and total unification of North and South Korea on the German model. Unfortunately, Kim Jong-Il in the North knows he will lose power if North and South Korea unite, and in the South, Roh Moo-hyun is afraid that unification will allow millions of bitter ex-Communists to vote him out of office. That is why Kim Jong-Il and Roh Moo-hyun are both fighting hard to keep the North Korean regime alive and to keep Korea divided.

Thank you for the greetings from the Islamic Republic of Iran on September 11.

An Islamic Republic of Iran, mind you, that specializes in projecting "soft power" through its IEDs to kill our troops in Iraq, hoped-for nuclear weapons to obliterate Israel (and quite a few muslims by the way -- but who cares about Sunni muslims and Jews provided the Shi'ite Mahdi shows up), recent demands that Bahrain surrender and submit to Iran as a long-lost province, and medium-range ballistic missiles with warheads that can explode in Europe.

The best part of the author's unintended satire is his comment that purportedly identifies the use of 'soft power' by Russia: "The recent sale of Russian arms to Indonesia, a large Muslim nation, shows how America’s former customers are turning elsewhere".

Well my friend, I guess you are right. These 'soft power' Russian arms are probably as impotent as the missile-defense systems that the Russians sold to your country and Syria, which systems the Israeli fighter jets flew through unencumbered a couple of days ago. Now that's Russian and Iranian 'soft power': limp and impotent.

In conclusion, rather than speaking about the demise of America, I respectfully believe that we will, within five years, be speaking of the UN sponsored Persian trusteeship that replaced the Islamic Republic of Iran and its 'soft power' operations. Thank you for candidly speaking to us on September 11 and reminding us of the task that remains.

Are we in a better standing than 6 years ago?

The era of hard power has passed. I also think this latest meltdown on Wall Street is deep-rooted and could affect the world economy.

Really Sheesh? Why is it then that every assumption of America about Iraq is proven wrong? Every one!

If America was on the right track, why is it that it is isolated?

America is pushing very hard to disarm North Korea because it does not want a nuclear armed united Korea, no?

It would take a massive suspension of disbelief to take this seriously. Whether or not you characterize American policy as militaristic, it's just idiotic to characterize Russian, Chinese or Iranian policy as peaceful. You mention in this very article that the Russians are selling arms to Indonesia (among many, many others, including Venezuela), and its the Chinese who are funding (with oil purchases) the ongoing carnage in Darfur. I don't support President Bush in the war he's led us into, but this article blatantly ignores the inconvenient facts of global relations, in the process implying that Americans are the only ones who don't see the simplicity so apparent to the author. Total rubbish.

Salamon says:

"The Chinese think in centuries, while the USA lives from quarter to quarter. Do not bet against a 3000+ year old nation with 4 times your population."

American Observer replies:

Sir, do you know anything about world history? If you did, you would know that fifty years ago that Chairman Mao told the Chinese to melt their farm tools into slag, and the Chinese obeyed like sheep; and the Chinese survived the famine which followed by eating their own children -- in the millions. Do you read the newspapers today? If you did, you would know that lead paint destroys the brain of people who eat it, but the Chinese still put lead paint on the toys that they sell to foreign children, and to their own children. That is how clearly the Chinese think about the future!

American Observer:

For all the good it done the USA to have this overwhelming hard power [defence budget in excess of 700 billion dollars counting homeland security, dept energy's nuclear armament budget, plus the 18 intelligence againcies] it just ensured that your children/grandchildren will have an unmanagable financial burden at the time that you have rising Social security and Medicare costs double in real terms.

in about 25 years you have managed with all this hard power to transform the USA economy from the biggest international NET investor to the biggest international NET debtor, a process which has undermined both your soft power and your hard power. you have ceded your $ and your economy to the political will of China, Japan, Russia, Opec etc. Contemplate the Chinese "observation" regarding USA $ versus trade sanction . The Chinese think in centuries, while the USA lives from quarter to quarter. Do not bet against a 3000+ year old nation with 4 times your population.
Keep up your boasting and in 20 years at this rate you will achieve the dubious benefit of third rate power.

Ali, my friend, you need to think. If hard power matters so little, why are the Russians killing so many Moslems in Chechnya? And why is India expanding its nuclear arsenal? And why are the Chinese stacking up missiles along the Taiwan Strait? And why is your own nation of Iran spending so many billions of dollars to build nuclear weapons? All the nations that you mentioned are desperate to increase their hard power. Your poetry is moving, but it has no connection to anything that is happening in the real world.